Engine flameout...restart or no?

[ImbracableCrunk]

I know what my airline would say (the stock answer for everything) : "Captain's discretion!"

 

[pianoman]

There is a debate among some of us in re-current training. Basicly we can either fight an engine fire after take-off after we get the plane cleaned up at 1,000' AGL or we have the option that if the plane is well under control, start at 400' AGL. Am curious what other carriers do in this regard. The schools of thought are that by waiting till 1,000 you may be getting some residual thrust from the buring engine versus by starting at 400' you get the fire out earlier.

Wow. Re-starting an engine at 400' AGL? Maybe if you're blasting off out of someplace in Iowa with nothing to hit, but anywhere else I would think you'd be a little busy trying to avoid obstacles and hold V2 on one engine to be fu*(ing around trying to get it started again that low.

Just my 2 cents. Let the sucker burn to 1000.

Also in the real world, if you're not aware beforehand it's going to happen, you're going to spend at least the first 30 seconds figuring out what to do with the other crewmember.

 

[FatesPawn]

There is a debate among some of us in re-current training. Basicly we can either fight an engine fire after take-off after we get the plane cleaned up at 1,000' AGL or we have the option that if the plane is well under control, start at 400' AGL. Am curious what other carriers do in this regard. The schools of thought are that by waiting till 1,000 you may be getting some residual thrust from the buring engine versus by starting at 400' you get the fire out earlier.

Yeah, that sounds exactly like the type of discussions instructors and checkairmen stay up nights debating to themselves. Then they show up for ground school and start espousing their academia.

400? 1000? Who gives a rats ass? Seriously.

You probably missed both and are totally off profile.

Your engine probably did not fail, but something is burning like a loose fuel line or hydraulics.

Any number of possibilities exist, but this sounds EXACTLY like the type of minutia training departments get wrapped up in, so debate away!!!

-fate

 

[blzr]

If your ignition switch is on and you have a flameout due to WX or turbulance shouln't the engine relight? Doubtful your N2 has gone below 20% and there would still be fuel going to the burner can, it should relight. If it doesn't, fly the plane first and then deal with the problem when you have gotten to a safe altitude.

 

[Mach 80]

>>>Re-starting an engine at 400' AGL? <<<

No. Not re-starting. I don't believe I'd re-start an engine where there was a fire warning. Did you read my post? Doing things like pulling the thrust lever to idle and start lever to cut-off -- the idea to reduce fire damage or possible catastrophic incident sooner than waiting till 1,000' AGL. If you were sitting by the engine seeing a roaring fire raging, maybe you'd prefer something done at 400' rather than 1,000'.

 

[LJDRVR]

I had a Lear 25 flame out once in the middle of the night during descent into Amarillo. Just spooled back to a windmilling state without a single annunciator lighting up. I took the radio and had the FO work his way through the QRH. We got everything secured properly and I asked him:

"Looks like a clean flameout to me. I don't see any fire indications or evidence of a bearing failure or damage, you wanna go for an airstart?"

"Naah...I think we better leave well enough alone."

Was his response. This was the flight I learned CRM is not a democracy. I had him go ahead and restart the motor.

We briefed the bold-face items for engine failure during approach, took a 360 degree turn to make sure we had all our ducks lined up and shot the visual approach.

The mechanic who came out to work on the jet found pieces of the turbine blades broken off, with damage to both the compressor and hot section.

It stayed running long enough for us to shoot the approach.

One can Monday-morning quarterback my decision all day long. One could assert that a secured, single-engine approach would have been more stable and safe than the possibility of another failure close to the ground. But what we did worked out fine. Given the choice between having an engine and not having it - I'll take the motor.

The DO I worked for later patiently explained to me that it wasn't a requirement for me to have declared an emergency. I politely disagreed - I wanted the FO, the controller and myself all on the same sheet of music in regards to what was happening.

The best part?

Our PAX slept through the whole thing! They never knew.

Thank God I don't have to work at a bottom-feeder anymore.

 

[transpac]

I had a Lear 25 flame out once in the middle of the night during descent into Amarillo.

20 series Lears with the engine variable inlet guide vanes a little out of adjustment are guaranteed to flameout occasionally at high mach. It used to be pretty common to hear a Lear ask for a descent to 250 for a restart then climb back to 410 or whatever.

 

[JT12345]

Let's see...

If I am not life threatened by a flameout...

If flameouts don't normally happen...

An engine is worth thousands if not millions of dollars....

maybe I will make a few calls to get others involved,

so I don't have to take full responsibility for possiblie futher damage to a flamedout engine.

Being a Captain allows you the full responsibility, but if you like to keep your job it is better to get others involved when warranted. After all it is not your name on the airworthiness certificate. You don't own the airplane.

 

[Bob_Sacamano]

FOLLOW THE CHECKLIST. But if the checklist allows, and there is no reason to suspect any internal damage, sure I'd try a restart.

 

[LJDRVR]

20 series Lears with the engine variable inlet guide vanes a little out of adjustment are guaranteed to flameout occasionally at high mach. It used to be pretty common to hear a Lear ask for a descent to 250 for a restart then climb back to 410 or whatever.

Yep, the CJ610 and the J85 to an even larger exent are prone to high-altitude problems, but here's the deal on the engine in question. The flame-out occured around FL300, at 80% RPM in the descent. It was due for a hot section, the normal grace period was something like 20 hours. (If I'm remembering correctly) the company had good trend on the engine and asked GE for 100 hours which they granted. We had just flown past the lower grace period when the thing ate istself.

We were fortunate to get a relight considering the damge later found to the engine.

As to the gentlemen who suggested that due to the dollar amouint involved one should get others involved? While I understand your perspective, I'm not sure I agree. I don't care how much the engine costs, if I can keep it running even if it means a huge bill, then as PIC, I'm going to write that check.

Without any indication of damage, there is simply no way for some mechanic on ARINC to provide me with anymore information than what I already had. (Particularly the mechanics at this particular operation.)

I don't care who owns the airplane. When I'm flying it, it belongs to me, and the cost of a repair is not going to enter into my decision-making process or tempt me to incur more risk. I'm not going to increase my exposure by flying around single engine while I get a Director of Maintenance out of bed who has a track record of non-compliance, profit-over-safety-mindset and a lack of anything resembling technical expertise, to ask him what he thinks I should do.

And I'm pretty sure if your family was in back you'd agree too.